Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday August 04, 2011 @07:20PM
from the what-renton-might-need-is-some-attention dept.

SeattleGameboy writes "It seems that the Renton (suburb of Seattle) police need a remedial course on the U.S. Constitution," linking to a story at Seattle TV station KIRO which says "The Renton City Prosecutor wants to send a cartoonist to jail for mocking the police department in a series of animated Internet videos. The 'South-Park'-style animations parody everything from officers having sex on duty to certain personnel getting promoted without necessary qualifications. While the city wants to criminalize the cartoons, First Amendment rights advocates say the move is an 'extreme abuse of power.'"

In America, the cops is always right !! No matter what the cops did, or still doing, there are always people who will scream their heads off telling you that the cops are right !

It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment or Free Speech or Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

The Cops are above them all !

Actually, the issue is a bit more complex, although this is certainly how many officers behave. (Others are significantly more professional, and even courteous.)

A huge problem we have is that, realistically, the prosecution gets to write the story. The vast majority of cases settle, which means that the formal record of any criminal event in this country is the prosecution's version of events. This version of events is frequently, at best, inaccurate. The function of the prosecution and of the police, on paper, is not to be a neutral arbiter but to make sure the case is strong. This is not to say that this version of events is a deliberate lie, but it nevertheless completely fails to be an accurate record of the event. So of the huge volume of data we have of criminality, most of it is incredibly biased. Only when a case actually goes to trial does the defense present a case, and there the assumption on the part of most people in the room is that the defendant is guilty.

That being said, I also know several people who have been beaten by the cops without provocation. Those cops are not professionals, and they are not just something of an ass at times. They are fucking criminals who should be sent to jail.

Did you watch the clip? Did you note that he was on the ground screaming for his father, while being beaten and tasered? Now what do you think would have happened if some of the witnesses had decided not just to be bystanders but to intervene to tell the cops to stop?Or imagine that it was a cop who had been assaulted in that fashion - do you think the perps would all make it to the station, let alone trial?

And did you notice I wrote "Face the electric chair", not "string 'em up from the nearest tree"? I do

No one is licensed to kill. They are licensed to carry a firearm to be used if needed. If they were licensed to kill they would be allowed to just kill people whenever they wanted for no reason. They are subject to laws and department policy.Police are expected to kill only as a last resort.

Samurai had a real license to kill. They were allowed to kill anyone that insulted their honor. There are very few real life instances where someone has a license to kill. Police are certainly not one of them.

I know you're being annoying, but the truth is that it is expected that police forces will try to overstep their authority.

That's the whole point of the Constitution: not that police forces and government officials will never overstep their authority but that when they do they get bitch-slapped to the ground and the overstepee gets a fat payday to punish the ones who violated someone's rights as well as their fat-fuck supervisors who got their position because they are the brother-in-law of the city council chairman.

It is the beauty of our Constitutional system in action, and it keeps me from getting overly outraged at the police assholes who actually believed that you can prosecute someone for simply expressing an opinion.

Now, the outrage would be warranted if somehow the prosecution stuck or said donut-eating side of pork and his department managed to somehow avoid the punishment they so richly deserve.

For the most part, I'm OK with police. I know several socially and teach a t'ai chi course that is attended by a few forty-something officers. For the most part they are decent and honorable people who don't fuck around with peoples' rights. They are of a generation that is sickened by the behavior of predecessors like a former Commander Jon Burge (here in Chicago) who is sitting in a Federal penitentiary for extracting confessions through the use of torture. But now he's got to be really careful when performing his daily ablutions and the men who were tortured to confess have received multi-million dollar awards, which is of course insufficient for having spent years, sometimes decades behind bars and in a couple of cases on Death Row. But the right people were punished and the right people were paid and the generation of cops that seem to be rising to supervisory positions at least here in Chicago appear to be more professional and more decent.

In other words, the system seems to work, but only if we constantly watch it. There needs to always be civilian oversight of all law enforcement (and military for that matter). There are still problems, but there's at least an expectation that they will be solved.

You're posting this in a article where someone is being charged by drawing a comic of police. Its hardly an improvement because 80% of cops are "good". also, define a good cop, Police are people who will arrest you if they feel you are guilty, they don't go and fuck around with others rights... UNLESS they are perceived by the police as a "baddie", then you're just a baddie, and it doesn't matter what happens to you. even a "honorable nice cop" will treat a "baddie" like crap

No, sorry, the system doesn't work. Many police are sadistic bullies, and even the "good cops" accept it, so the good cops in their No, sorry, the system doesn't work. Many police are sadistic bullies, and even the "good cops" accept it, so the good cops in their complicity are bad cops too.

People who are framed by the cops usually go to jail, sometimes to death row.

The cases where innocent people are acquitted are rare, usually the result of an unusual circumstance, like the person who actually did the crime feeling guilty and confessing, or a crime where a DNA test can resolve the facts.

The Innocence Project, which first started freeing people from jail with DNA evidence, said the significance of their acquittals was that they were rare and unusual and they demonstrated that many people were falsely convicted in cases where they *couldn't* be vindicated with DNA evidence -- and they're still in jail.

Worst of all, when cops get caught committing perjury, the prosecutors usually don't prosecute. For example, in New York City, during the Democratic convention, the police arrested demonstrators who were doing nothing illegal -- along with innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the demonstration -- and gave sworn testimony, under oath, accused them of felony crimes.

One of the defense lawyers got the police's own videos, which clearly showed that the defendants were innocent, and that the cops were committing perjury. But the police department refused to prosecute them for perjury. If it wasn't for that accident of having the videos, these defendants would have had to choose between pleading guilty to a minor crime or (if they had the $50,000 or so for a criminal defense) going to trial and possibly getting convicted of a serious felony.

So the police have strong career (financial) incentives for framing people, and no penalty for lying. What do you think they're going to do?

Will you just fuck off and find another website to be a lazy useless cunt on?

If you disagree then engage in constructive discussion. Challenge prejudice, use your own references and see if you can break through the decades of experience people have of police brutality and the consistent constant inability of the police to prosecute their own.

The irony being, I know the flaws in that previous paragraph. I can dig out the references. I can't be arsed. I know of many instances where police officers in the UK h

If a police officer gives you an order, YOU SHUT UP AND OBEY. No complaining, no resisting. It doesn't matter who is right, just stay quiet and save it for the judge..

That's what certain German soldiers did. They did what they were told, kept quiet, and saved it for the judge. Who unhesitatingly sentenced them to death, establishing the granite precedent for all future times that "I was just obeying orders" is never an acceptable excuse. As a human being you have a brain and a sense of morality, both of which you should use early and often.

Now if a disciplined private soldier, in a desperate war against a ruthless enemy, dare not obey an order unthinkingly and unquestion

but overall, the ACLU is anti-church, anti-family, anti-white, and anti-establishment

Nonsense. The ACLU defends *all* churches, not just the mainstream ones -- they step up to defend groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, as well as Muslims,Jews, atheists, Pagans, etc. The ACLU defends the rights of *all* families, not just Mom+Dad+2.5 kids. Labeling them "anti-white" is gibberish -- the ACLU defends the free speech rights of the KKK.

And in a nation where the "establishment" has no respect for the rights of the people, being anti-establishment is a virtue.

Not to say they're always right, but the ACLU is on the side of the angels more often than any other political group.

The ACLU used to be what you're describing (at least for first amendment issues). That was about 40 years ago. They stood on the side of principle without regard to who it was they were defending including racists, nazis, criminals, various religions, etc. This was when they were fulfilling their promises and "fighting the good fight" as it were. These days they're just a political movement in cognito.

It's a shame because we need an organization that is what they used to be to the first amendment: watch

The only people who think the ACLU is anti-church are the ones who think their religion should be promoted to the rest of us. a random piece of data I found [aclufights...stians.com]. I'm not sure how they're anti-family, or anti-white or anti-establishment. Unless you're trying to tell someone else how to live their life it's unlikely there is any reason to detest the ACLU.

ACLU? I watch them. They do some good things - but overall, the ACLU is anti-church, anti-family, anti-white, and anti-establishment. It's good that they are there, sometimes, but I really detest them. Having the ACLU around is like having an unpredictable watch dog in your home. You just never know when the damned dog will turn around and bite YOU!

No you don't. If you actually watched them, you'd know that nothing you say about them is true (except maybe the "anti-establishment" part -- but since when is that a bad thing?) Instead, you're just lazily regurgitating tired anti-ACLU propaganda that has nothing to do with the actual organization, and which makes their job, protecting the rights of Americans, that much harder. Too bad, but they'll keep defending your rights whether you deserve it or not.

Most of these criticisms are completely off the mark based on the cases they have taken on. ACLU has done more for society than you will ever do. I don't agree with them on everything, especially when it comes to their stance on the 2nd amendment, but I am not a one issue person and I will continue to support them.

you are looking at a different sets - when it comes to "power" there is a minority of the population that has it - but when you look at the Racial Minority Sets and do a Venn diagram you will notice little overlap between these two separate "minority" sets..

I don't have a huge problem with the ACLU primarily defending minorities, be they racial or religious. The minorities probably face a bit more of a problem than the majority...

However, I am greatly irritated by the ACLU's stand on the 2nd amendment. It's hypocritical, and the fact that they pick and choose what constitutional rights they defend undercuts their credibility quite a bit. If they only concerned themselves about the first amendment, for instance, I would understand that; but, it seems like

Even the police should know better. What surprises me most is that people are still surprised about this kind of thing. It happens all the time, while the big corruption within the government is ignored - in fact, it's a crime to point it out.

Even the police should know better. What surprises me most is that people are still surprised about this kind of thing. It happens all the time, while the big corruption within the government is ignored - in fact, it's a crime to point it out.

Actually, if you read the linked article, the cartoons contain information that could only be obtained through a leak in the Internal Affairs department of the Renton PD or someone at the Renton PD animating the rumor mill and getting lucky.
They're going the "cyberstalking" angle cause it's the closest thing they have to "some idiot's trolling the police online with stuff from Internal Affairs." Not sure the Cyberstalking law counts for this, but it's likely the most similar legal substitute.

It's not the police, it's the prosecutor. The police may have agitated for this, but the prosecutor is the person who should know better.

I saw a judge berate a lawyer for asking him to sign a prior-restraint TRO on his opposing party. The judge should have known better as well... but their claim is that the person is harassing and posting this with intent to embarass... which I can see (whistleblower laws protect you from reporting incidents to the proper authorities, not airing it on youtube) but the fact that the allegations aren't false, means the material isn't defamatory... so... good luck sticking this prosecution all the way to convic

It's not the police, it's the prosecutor. The police may have agitated for this, but the prosecutor is the person who should know better.

And should face disbarment for dereliction of his duty as an officer of the court.

The actions he seeks to prosecute are practically textbook examples of protected speech.

The judge who signed that warrant has some explaining to do as well. He isn't there to operate the rubber stamp, his job is to make the police and prosecutors demonstrate that their warrants are valid and constitutional before he signs off on them. If he won't do that or he's too much of a patsy to do that then he's a disgrace to his office and yet another in a growing list of reasons why citizens should re-consider any level of respect they might have left for their government.

Yeah good luck with that! you get a prosecutor with an agenda and life can turn to shit REAL quick friend. We had one of those in my area a few years back, a female who was a classic 'All those with a penis are rapist scum"no matter if there was anything...like oh say EVIDENCE, or even if the police believed it, nope if you had a penis you were rapist scum.

Once the women realized it was that way it got to the point every. damned. divorce. the woman would either scream rape herself or if she had a daughter

I, (redacted per forum post), believe that judge James Cayce has flagrantly and knowingly misconstrued the spirit of law with reference to RCW 9.61.260. The judge has signed off on a search warrant to expose the identity of a unknown person or persons who created numerous parody videos lambasting an unnamed Police Department. The videos are believed to be about the Renton Police Department yet provide little more than allusion to sa

(1) People don't have opinions on how the country should be run and are perfectly happy to allow extremists to do their own thing in government.

or

(2) People are tuning out a ruling establishment that's not remotely representative of their interests, in part because they have a choice of two parties both of which are, essentially, representative of that ruling establishment?

Look at Democrats. Every couple of decades, a motivated liberal base hears

...you civil liberties are becomeing an endangered species if you question authority, impead the operations of businesses, or criticize your elected officials. I never thought it would come to this in this country. Isn't it sad that the pent up frustration and anti-establishment from the 60's generation (the people now in power) has morphed into this?

Generation gap. The 60s people marched, risked jail time, and their lives to deal with this crap.

These days, people don't give a shit about rights, as long as they have their iPhone and their Facebook. Maybe they might sign a petition to have the First Amendment reinstated, or like a group on FB saying they miss having the ability to not have their property searched at whim. However don't expect anything more than that.

True, they volunteered, BUT and this is a very big BUT... they were sent to their deaths on the basis of a lie that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. Not only have 3000 Americans died for this lie, but millions of civilians have had their lives fucked over because of this lie and America and other western countries have been pouring billions of Dollars and Pounds and Euros down the hole to pay for the munitions etc. for this war... WHO is profiting

The ones that made their parents proud by embracing and extending the Old Guard."A chip off the old block!" and not an original, creative thought in his head to distract him from his mission.

Those 60's 'activists' are usually weeded out from gaining power during the selection process.Business and politics will mark you as ineligible for hire/unelectable with that stuff on your record.And with more databases go online with these records, it will become ne

Generation gap. The 60s people marched, risked jail time, and their lives to deal with this crap.

These days, people don't give a shit about rights, as long as they have their iPhone and their Facebook. Maybe they might sign a petition to have the First Amendment reinstated, or like a group on FB saying they miss having the ability to not have their property searched at whim. However don't expect anything more than that.

Of course there are people today who care enough about our rights to stand up for them. They're called Anonymous. They may be trying to create change the wrong way, but at least they are standing up against corporations, organizations, and governments who try to censor and tear down the First Amendment.

Of course there are people today who care enough about our rights to stand up for them. They're called ACLU & other similar organisations.

Fixed that for you. Anonymous is by definition not about any specific cause. Furthermore, most of what they do has nothing to do with protecting rights and is simply the abuse of others for amusement. You just have to look at how they respond to some of their critics (attacks, harassment etc) to see how much they truly value anyone else's freedom of speech.

Protesting in the 60s didn't get you stuck on a "no fly" list, blackballed from schools and corporate jobs and unable to get a security clearance. In a few years it will prevent you from getting medical care, which is cool if your 20 but sucks when your 50. Maybe Visa and MC will decide you are persona-non-grata and you can't buy food and such. No bank accounts, you might be a terrorist and in any event you are on the list.

The state has drastically raised the price of protest and disobedience. It is an insi

Yes, the Renton (Wash.) city prosecutor’s office concludes, applying the Washington “cyberstalking” statute — an excellent example of the dangers of the broad “cyberbullying” and “harassment” statutes that I have often condemned. KIRO-TV reports:

The Renton City Prosecutor wants to send a cartoonist to jail for mocking the police department in a series of animated Internet videos.

The “South-Park”-style animations parody everything from officers having sex on duty to certain personnel getting promoted without necessary qualifications.... [Last week, the prosecutor filed] a search warrant accusing an anonymous cartoon creator, going by the name of Mr. Fiddlesticks, of cyberstalking (RCW 9.61.260). The Renton Police Department and the local prosecutor got a judge to sign off as a way to uncover the name of whoever is behind the parodies.......

Under the prosecutor’s view, any statement — including on a blog, in a YouTube video, in a newspaper article, on television, or whatever else — is a crime if it is made “with intent to harass,... torment, or embarrass” the subject of the person “[u]sing any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language.” A comedian’s joke that “lewd[ly]” or “lascivious[ly]” described President Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky, or for that matter Congressman Weiner’s behavior, would be a crime if it was made “with intent to... embarrass” the President or the Congressman. The Hustler parody attacking Jerry Falwell, which the Supreme Court held to be protected against civil liability under the “intentional infliction of emotional distress tort,” would be a crime. Indeed, in this very case, the theory is that the videos are criminal because they described alleged police sexual misconduct using “lewd” or “indecent” words with the intent to torment or embarrass particular officers. (The theory expressed in the document — a search warrant application — is that the videos sufficiently identify the particular police officers who were involved in the incidents to which the video alludes.)

If the prosecutor is right that the statute should be interpreted this broadly, then it’s clearly unconstitutionally overbroad. Speech to the public doesn’t lose its constitutional protection because it’s intended to torment or embarrass. (It may lose such protection when it’s intended to be perceived as a true threat of criminal attack, but that’s not the issue here.) Nor does lose its constitutional protection because it uses “lewd” or “indecent” terms. And while one-to-one speech said to an unwilling listener may in some circumstances be restricted — which is the reason traditional telephone harassment laws, if properly crafted, may be constitutional — this rationale can’t be used to suppress speech said to the public, even if the people discussed in the speech are tormented or embarrassed by it.

Moreover, the statute would be clearly unconstitutional as applied to this video, and the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this. (The prosecutor is Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur; the judge on an earlier warrant was James Cayce, but I don’t know what the affidavit said there, and I don’t know the name of the judge who apparently issued the warrant based on the affidavit included with the KIRO story.) A search warrant can onl

The prosecutor fully knows he is barking up the wrong Constitutional tree, but what is really unconcerting is the fact that they are doing this just so that they can find out who "Mr.Fiddlestick" is. Since Google won't reveal who "Mr.Fiddlestick" is without a criminal investigation, they are using this to run around that requirement. I doubt that they will even charge him with the statue.
Pretty sickening abuse of power.

They already know who he is. The comics chronicle conversations he had with people in that office. And you can tell from their tone that he's on the outs with the leadership. They just want proof it was him so they can fire him, or whatever.

Moreover, the statute would be clearly unconstitutional as applied to this video, and the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this. (The prosecutor is Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur; the judge on an earlier warrant was James Cayce, but I don’t know what the affidavit said there, and I don’t know the name of the judge who apparently issued the warrant based on the affidavit included with the KIRO story.) A search warrant can only be issued if there is probable cause to believe that it will uncover evidence of a crime; since the material described in the affidavit can’t be made criminal under the cited statute, given the First Amendment, the warrant ought not have been issued. The government is not permitted to use its coercive power to identify the author of this constitutionally protected video.

I am also not a lawyer, though I do pay attention and did study a bit of law, and I believe your epxlanations and analysis are spot on. A statute that broad (I admit I have not read it, nor am at all familiar with Washington state laws) runs afoul of the constitution in such an obvious manner that no prosecutor should attempt to use it in this way, and no judge should allow a case like that to proceed. If prosecution proceeds, and the defendant fights it up through the courts as far as necessary, the only q

IAAL and you're right in that it is clearly unconstitutional, and should be struck down on broadness grounds or more likely just because it prohibits Constitutionally permitted activities. You don't even really have to go that far, though; Washington state's criminal code defines person this way:

"(17) "Person", "he", and "actor" include any natural person and, where relevant, a corporation, joint stock association, or an unincorporated association."

I'm not sure that there is prosecutorial involvement here. If there were, I would have expected to see the City Attorney put his or her ass on the line rather than the chief of police. The source you quote for prosecutorial involvement doesn't look too reliable.

The judge should be removed from the bench and the prosecutor should be disbarred. This is blatant abuse of the judicial process, and both are either complicit or incompetent, and either one should warrant their removal from their respective offices.

but it will still work. Lawyers cost money and defending against a criminal complaint costs time as well. By the time the case is dismissed, the defendant is going to be bankrupt either way and it'll be a very long time before anyone thinks of criticising the police in that part of the State.

Assuming they don't simply bust into his house, trash it, kill his dog simply out of spite, and perhaps even him for "resisting arrest". Cops think they have the power to mete out low justice in the form of lead.

Thin blue line my ass. These aren't cops. They're armed criminals and should be dealt with on that basis. The Second defends the First.

The proper mindful response to such criticism would be change the policies of the police department and the behavior of its officers such that no reasonable person would even briefly consider them credible.

As it is, the only reason for them to believe that a costly criminal trial is necessary is (a) because they themselves actually find the parody critiques credible and (b) they intend to discourage further criticism by vilifying the creator of the parodies.

This is not justice or rule of law in action. This is tribalism (police department and city officials being the tribe), abuse of the law, and abuse of authority. This is actual criminal behavior perpetrated by people sworn to protect and uphold. We know what they're attempting to protect, and it's not us.

Also, the username(s) used by the uploader were "MrFuddlesticks" (not fiddlesticks) and "whothehellispenny". It looks like the rest of the videos have already been deleted (couldn't find any kind of search feature on xtranormal).

Clearly the idiots in charge of this little corner of Soviet Russia don't clearly understand the law or the American Constitution. Bad Con Law Professors or a very lax grading curve for these Prosecutors and Judges. Just sad the state of legal education if they've let idiots like these be in charge of anything more important than dog licensing.

I would say a law school's responsibility is solely to prepare a student for passing the bar exam. It is the responsibility of the bar association to ensure the bar exam will only allow qualified individuals through to practice law.

If idiots are being allowed to practice, don't blame the schools, blame the bar association.

...if people, companies, and government agencies would just develop a sense of humour about themselves and stop feeling mortally threatened by every little bit of criticism.

And if the cartoons contain factual info that is embarrassing or threatening to the force or to individuals therein, then a house cleaning is in order and the investigation should be directed at the PD, not at the citizen revealing the information. But it seems that these days, government agencies are sacrosanct, and immune from criticis

The constitution diminishes our inalienable human rights, it doesn't augment them. Its purpose is to restrict corporate (ie: microsoft) government which in reality is there to regulate commerce. If anyone needs proof that we're trained from kindergarten to behave like and even claim to be corporate entities (and therefore subject to regulation), they need to read more books. (And not the kind from Chapters either.)

Some judge signed this warrant. We have the warrant requirement just so people will be safe from abuses like this.

I seriously doubt that this warrant was EVER intended to support a criminal prosecution. All the cops want is a NAME. They are not seeking prosecution--that would obviously be ludicrous. They are using the warrant process to conduct an internal security investigation. This is a serious misuse of the warrant requirement.

Misusing warrants can mean a section 1983 lawsuit. Misleading a judge a

This is an isolated incident. This totally isn't happening all over the country. The police totally don't violate people's first, second, fourth and fifth amendment rights on a daily basis. There is no need to watch the watchers. They are all honorable upstanding citizens. Also, the opposite of everything I just said.

When you yourselves are seen as not obeying the law of the land, you expose yourselves to the risk of removing your authority. Authority is granted for certain purposes, not others. You must enforce the law, you are not allowed to enforce whims. You are diluting your authority by permitting such abuses. The people will see this as an abrogation of the agreement between government and the governed.

Just because the founding fathers lived a couple of centuries ago, doesn't mean that people don't get equally upset now as they did in 1776.

Actually, police are not supposed to "enforce the law", they are supposed to maintain order.

If they see someone causing disorder, they may, at their discretion, choose to gently caution, give a stern warning to, give a written citation to, or arrest, the individual causing the disturbance.

In a perfect world, a police officer will NOT enter into that situation simply because the individual causing the disorder is merely annoying or insulting to the officer themselves. In a perfect world, a police officer is supposed to have a thick skin and endless amounts of patience. In a perfect world, an officer refrains from a confrontation until someone else complains about the disorderly behavior, or that behavior clearly escalates to maliciousness and/or damage of physical property, or the overall psychological well-being of the populace.

In a perfect world, "law enforcement" is the product of proper police behavior.

What we are seeing is petty, selfish, arrogant, belligerent, puerile and legally actionable misbehavior by the police and their support structure.

And, should the local legal system fail in providing a solution, then the case must be escalated to the state, then federal legal system.

Should that fail, our problems are going to be much more serious than police misbehavior.

I don't know where you hail from, but here in the US, law enforcement certainly is the preeminent duty of a police force. Individuals comprising a police force are universally called LEOs in police-speak. I'll let you guess what that TLA stands for. That even applies to correctional officers, who in many jurisdictions only have police authority over inmates.

But, no... Uniformed officers are paid to prevent crime through their presence, enforce the law, protect life and property, and respond to crimes--not i

the renton police like to pretend they are all swat officers in a robocop movie. all of their patrol cars are kitted out with external roll cages, and the officers wear full body armor at all times. i used to work in the old city hall building, and they would use the floor below us for training exercises with flash bang grenades. we'd ride the same elevator up and i'd count the number of handguns strapped to their hips and chest (always more than their number of hands).
parking in a lot full of brand new cop cars with shiny new powder-coated black rims didn't make me feel safer... it made me feel like the police had their priorities in an order that did not benefit the community... this story is more of the same.

Who the hell are you and what have you done with the MichaelKristopeit### Troll?

Speaking as a 3rd generation native of the area, let me clarify. Renton wants to think that it is South Bellevue, but everybody else knows it's really North Kent. Watch a few episodes of Almost Live if you need further context.